World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[SuperDerpBro]

The statism is strong in this forum.



Give it a read

[marurun]

Doesn't look very good. I'll pass.

[MrPopo]

The description reads like "Learn this one weird trick to figure out politics".

[prfsnl_gmr]

Doesn't look very good. I'll pass.

I read it. (It's available for free online.). It does not reflect either extensive research or an educated opinion omits subject.

The basic thesis is that there is no such thing a legitimate authority.

[MrPopo]

I also noticed that the top reviews had perfect helpful scores without actually talking about the content of the book or how it was presented, just "this book made be a believer!" Whereas the one stars had cogent arguments of "these were the following failings with the author's thesis and presentation".

[SuperDerpBro]

The basic thesis is that there is no such thing a legitimate authority.

A correct thesis

Sometimes very simple questions can cause profound cognitive
dissonance. Here is a series of very simple questions I like to
pose to people at random, especially if I want to make their heads
explode. (For the record, my head was long ago exploded by these
simple concepts, so I'm not claiming superiority here.)

1) Can you delegate to someone else a right which you don't have?
For example, if you don't have the right to punch me in the nose
(just for fun), can you GIVE the right to do so to someone else?

The answer is self-evident: no, you can't. If it's bad for you to
do it, you can't make it good for someone else to do it, whether it
be murder, assault, theft, vandalism, etc. If it's immoral for YOU
to do something, how could you possibly have the ability to make it
moral for someone ELSE to do it?

2) Can TWO people delegate a right that neither of them has? For
example, if TWO of you want me to be punched in the nose (but
neither of you has the right), can you GIVE a third person the
right to punch me? What if 50 of you wanted it? How about a million
people?

Again, the answer is pretty obvious: no, the NUMBER of people who
want to do something bad doesn't make it into something good;
numbers cannot create the moral RIGHT for someone to do something.
And note, I'm talking about moral justification, not mere ability.
Almost everyone is ABLE to punch me in the nose--especially if
there are a million people who want my nose punched--but that's not
the same as having a moral RIGHT to do so. It doesn't matter how
big the group gets: if NO ONE in the group has a right to do "A,"
then they can't give that right to someone else.

Up to this point, most people follow along without much protest.
The answers seem patently obvious to almost everyone. However, if I
add a third, equally simple question, it sends most people into a
philosophical crisis:

3) If people cannot delegate rights they don't have, where did
"government" get the right to do what it does?

Sure, a few "laws" are just the exercising of rights we all have:
the right to defend yourself (or others) against thieves,
murderers, invaders, etc. We have the right of self-defense, so--if
we feel so inclined--we can delegate that right to someone else.
But consider how many so-called "laws" are things which you and I
would never dream of doing on our own, because we know we don't
have the right.

For example, do you personally have the right to demand money from
your neighbor, just because you want it? Do you have the right to
imprison him for smoking a leaf you don't approve of? To take his
money for driving his car without your permission? To tell him what
he can eat, where he can live, who he can work for, who he can
hire, who he can fire, how he can run his business, what he can
sell? And do you have the right to put him in a cage if he chooses
to disobey any arbitrary command you care to fling at him? If YOU
don't personally have the right to play intrusive control freak,
how did those in "government" get the right to do it? Who gave it
to them?

At this point, many people jump to the popular excuse of necessity.
"We NEED to have government doing those things, or there would be
.... ANARCHY!" That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question: from
whom did they get the right? Based on the self-evident answers to
my first two questions, they didn't get the right from YOU, or from
any of your six billion neighbors (none of whom have the right
themselves). So, where did it come from? A piece of parchment? A
magical voting booth? If we mere mortals didn't give them the right
(and we didn't), who or what DID?

We talk about "representative" government. What does that mean? If
someone really "represents" me, he may do only what I may do. For
example, I could authorize my "representative" to do business for
me. I could do it myself, but I allow him to do it instead. What I
may NOT morally do, however, I cannot authorize him to do either.
To be a "representative" just means acting on someone else's
behalf. If I have no right to do a particular thing, it should be
painfully obvious that someone "representing" me doesn't have that
right either.

So, upon whose behalf are the federal "representatives" acting? If
YOU don't personally have the right to "tax" me (and you don't),
neither does your "representative." How, then, did we reach a point
where almost everyone accepts as indisputable doctrine that our
"representatives" have rights that WE DON'T? On its face the idea
is absurd, and yet 99.9% of the country unquestioningly accepts it
as a given.

I'm going to stop there for now, because I have found, after doing
this little mental exercise with dozens (if not hundreds) of
people, that those few simple concepts are enough to stir up some
serious turmoil in the minds of 99% of the people who consider
them. Why? Because those few simple, obvious answers very plainly
lead to a conclusion that scares the existential heck out of most
people. It's so scary, in fact, I won't even say what that
conclusion is ... yet.

[Sarge]

The reason government has the right to do so is through the consent of the governed (at least to some degree), and more overwhelmingly, the use of force and coercion. It is not a moral right, but one formed from consensus. Or, in the case of despotic countries, one formed simply from might and oppression.

Most folks around here know I'm a religious person, and specifically Christian, so the question of morality itself has already been answered for me. God Himself is the only moral authority, and my sense of morality, as flawed and ill-executed as it may be given my imperfections, does not rest upon the consensus of others.

[marurun]

Basically, it is for nutters.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Basically, it is for nutters.

I think that SuperDerpBro is the author, and I don't want to insult a new member.

That said, I think he would be well-served to spend some time studying economics, history, law, philosophy, and political theory if he wants to continue writing on these subjects. He is asking a good question, but he is not the first one to ask it. Other, exceptionally intelligent people have written on that subject, and a book that doesn't address - of even mention - their positions comes across as ramblings.

SuperDerpBro...You write a lot about rights, but you do not the define the term. How do you define it? And, how does it exist in the absence of authority?

[MrPopo]

SuperDerpBro...You write a lot about rights, but you do not the define the term. How do you define it? And, how does it exist in the absence of authority?

I was about to ask a similar question. Paraphrasing his initial thought, if I am not allowed to kick you in the shin then I certainly can't say it's ok for Sarge to kick you in the shin. But it overlooks the question of why am I not allowed to kick you in the shin? Who or what is withholding that from me? The obvious answer is that you would be quite upset if I did so and have politely asked me not to. But at that point there's nothing stopping me from doing so other than my own willingness (or lack thereof). If I am a rational actor I might decide not to kick you in the shin because you're more likely to retaliate if I do. Or I might decide that since you have asked me not to kick you in the shin that I have a moral duty not to kick you in the shin.

Then along comes marurun, a known shin kicker. There's nothing he likes to do more in the world than to go around kicking people in the shins. I certainly don't want to get kicked in the shin and neither does prfsnl_gmr. So we decide to enter into a partnership and agree that if marurun comes over and kicks one of us in the shin then the other person will retaliate in some way. Soon other people hear of this and say "Yeah, I want to get in on this. We can all promise not to kick each other in the shins and if anyone comes by and does so we'll get back at them". And now we've created the beginnings of a government that acts at the consent of the governed.